Any thoughts on the 48 hour working week opt out

handful

It would apply to the total of all jobs but it obviously more difficult to monitor if you have more than one.

Like wharty mentioned earlier, the transport industry was the first to get the opt out taken away a couple of years ago and there were cries of doom and gloom from hauliers and drivers in particular saying thet wages would have to rise to compensate for lost earnings and to some extent it has driven cost into distribution.

There were however a few 'sweeteners' e.g. a driver can take time spent queueing at a delivery point as a 'period of availability' and this can be deducted from their working time. Also, non statutary holidays don't have to be included in the worked totals so that enables workers to do more than 48 on average over a reference period. A complicated subject that I won't bore you with any more but suffice to say not something to be too scared about! To my knowledge, nobody has yet been prosecuted for exceeding the 48 hours and I'm sure there are many that have.

carolt

I think it's a great idea - if they have to take more staff on, then good = less unemployment overall, rather than a few frazzled staff.

And great for family life/work balance too.

And how many people who work 48 hour weeks can really claim they're working at their most productive towards the end of a very long day?

We should move to a system where children actually get to see their hard-working parents - Britain already works the longest hours in Europe!

Sharon87

hmm this is not good for my industry (television).

If I was employed as a studio runner for example days can be up to 12-14 hours due to the nature of TV. If I only worked studio days that would take my hours over the 48 hours. Non studio days are usually 7-8 hours long, so people like Producers/Directors work 50-60 hour weeks when filming.

If it averages out over a year it would be fine, as tv industy workers usually have time off between jobs (especially the people higher up), but 17 weeks? The average may be more than 48 hours!

I think as long as your health doesn't suffer you should be able to work more hours if you wish.

custardy

well as an ex chef its about time the hospitality industry bucked its ideas up and either paid its staff for hours or cut their working week
its crazy in this day and age staff can be doing 15 hour days and being paid for 8
so the 48 hour rule would address this.yes it may mean price rises but it would show they were being artificially held by unpaid labour

bing0

custardy wrote: »

well as an ex chef its about time the hospitality industry bucked its ideas up and either paid its staff for hours or cut their working week
its crazy in this day and age staff can be doing 15 hour days and being paid for 8
so the 48 hour rule would address this.yes it may mean price rises but it would show they were being artificially held by unpaid labour

I see where you are coming from,but exploitation in this case is different to what this ruling is addressing.You need to see an employement lawyer if you are not getting paid for hours worked.

I see the implications of this ruling hitting industry in a big way.It will definitely result in major job losses.How on earth can companies compete on the world stage,tendering for major contracts,when there main employers have to down tools after 48 hours.This takes out the edge of competition for tenders,when you are up against countries not regulated by such rulings.

The government are pushing for large companies to sell their services to a world market,to export their goods to a world market.If you want industry to do this,then take away these barriers.All it is creating is unemployment,and as a tax payer (like most of you are),I do not wish the burden of higher employment.

At present we all have a choice,please do not take that away from us.Lots of your relatives fought in WW1 and WW2 so we all could have choices,dont insult their decision to fight and loose their lives for nothing !

Gorgeous_George

I think it is right that workers are limited to an average of 48 hours. Longer hours doesn't necessarily equate to more work - just more time doing said work.

With unemployment likely to rise throughout Europe, employers should be encouraged to employ more people to do the work. It won't suit all companies nor all employees but it seems reasonable to me.

It is likely that working less hours increases the quality of the work undertaken and reduces workplace accidents.

GG

treliac

BlondeHeadOn wrote: »

Presumably this would only be tracked for one job?

What about if someone has two or more jobs?

I know some friends are working 'full time' at one job then moonlighting to earn extra money, which would put them well over the 48 hour limit.

I'm sure there are many who will ignore this, especially during these hard times. If you have to take two poorly paid jobs and work all hours to keep your family afloat, what will people choose to do?

Sapphire

I think people who work longer hours than the set week are very lucky to be paid! It is extremely rare in my profession (publishing) for anyone to be paid overtime, though we frequently work very long hours, well over what we are contracted to do.

In my experience, only one publishing company has paid overtime – and that was a wealthy American company many years ago. :cool:

custardy

bing0 wrote: »

I see where you are coming from,but exploitation in this case is different to what this ruling is addressing.You need to see an employement lawyer if you are not getting paid for hours worked.

I see the implications of this ruling hitting industry in a big way.It will definitely result in major job losses.How on earth can companies compete on the world stage,tendering for major contracts,when there main employers have to down tools after 48 hours.This takes out the edge of competition for tenders,when you are up against countries not regulated by such rulings.

The government are pushing for large companies to sell their services to a world market,to export their goods to a world market.If you want industry to do this,then take away these barriers.All it is creating is unemployment,and as a tax payer (like most of you are),I do not wish the burden of higher employment.

At present we all have a choice,please do not take that away from us.Lots of your relatives fought in WW1 and WW2 so we all could have choices,dont insult their decision to fight and loose their lives for nothing !

unfortunatly its the mindset of catering
if you went a legal route you wouldnt get a job anywhere!
i see what people are saying but surely something has to be done.
we in the UK work long hours compared ot some of our european counterparts .
so what do they do to 'cope'?

custardy

Sapphire wrote: »

I think people who work longer hours than the set week are very lucky to be paid! It is extremely rare in my profession (publishing) for anyone to be paid overtime, though we frequently work very long hours, well over what we are contracted to do.

In my experience, only one publishing company has paid overtime – and that was a wealthy American company many years ago. :cool:

its not luck.its how it should be.
nearly every job ive had has had unpaid overtime but it doesnt make it right